Unreliable Torture

[Indirik]

...and asking for a scout report because you believe the peasant more than you believe the noble. Same with asking for a torture report because you believe the scribe more than the noble.

Again, you are imposing your human values and ways of thinking on the definitely non-human Zuma. Who says they even recognize the division between noble/commoner? Or are even aware that such a thing exists? Maybe the Zuma determine your place in the hierarchy by the color of the chitin plating? Or how far you can spit fireballs? Or the pitch of your voice? etc., etc...

I think that once you stop trying to think of the Zuma as nothing more than just a human realm with a bigger army, you'll be better equipped to deal with them.

[Chenier]

Again, you are imposing your human values and ways of thinking on the definitely non-human Zuma. Who says they even recognize the division between noble/commoner? Or are even aware that such a thing exists? Maybe the Zuma determine your place in the hierarchy by the color of the chitin plating? Or how far you can spit fireballs? Or the pitch of your voice? etc., etc...

I think that once you stop trying to think of the Zuma as nothing more than just a human realm with a bigger army, you'll be better equipped to deal with them.

I'm not even talking about the Zuma here, I'm speaking in general.

However, it does seem pretty clear to me that if the Zuma GM suggested that this issue be brought before the magistrates, it *isn't* because he's got some RP justification for it. If the GM suggested that the issue go to the magistrates, then it's because it is an OOC issue. The magistrates don't deal with anything RP.

This isn't about "understanding" the Zuma culture. This is about the Zuma GM who believes it's perfectly fine to demand game-generated reports, but who invites the player who has issues with it to confirm the legitimacy of it by a magistrates ruling.

You are trying too hard to infer IC reasonning for something clearly purely OOC.

[Anaris]

You are trying too hard to infer IC reasonning for something clearly purely OOC.

I'm still having a hard time seeing what OOC justification you're imputing to the Zuma GM.

He knew OOC—with 100% certainty—that the message Terrence sent was a fake, and who put him up to it.

He knew this before he requested the torture report.

He has said this already.

Are you just ignoring his posts? Or do you think he's a liar?  Which I wouldn't generally ask, by the way, but in general, your and Vellos's treatment of the Zuma GM in all this has been pretty atrocious.  You've been acting all along as if he's a convicted bug-abuser who deserves whatever insults you feel like thrown his way—an attitude that we would rarely tolerate toward another player.

[Indirik]

However, it does seem pretty clear to me that if the Zuma GM suggested that this issue be brought before the magistrates, it *isn't* because he's got some RP justification for it. If the GM suggested that the issue go to the magistrates, then it's because it is an OOC issue.

Do you even bother reading what the GM posted? Would you like me to give you a direct link to his post? He told Vellos to go to the Magistrates and deal with it there because Vellos complained to the GM about it in an OOC IG message. The GM did not want to get into an OOC discussion IG about the issue. You didn't even try to find out if there was any IC/RP motivation for it.

You are trying too hard to infer IC reasonning for something clearly purely OOC.

Because you keep trying to be IC indignant over things that don't make sense. If you make IC arguments (i.e. "... asking for a torture report because you believe the scribe more than the noble."), then expect to get IC argumnts back.

But even that claim you made is plainly, and sorry for the language here, pure bull!@#$. Because the GM already told you why he asked. And you are completely ignoring his posts, and arguing useless crap which bears no relations to the actual situation, and attributing to him ridiculous motivations which he has already categorically denied.

If you were really interested in handling all this IC and IG, then what you should have done was, oh, maybe talk to the character IC? Through all of your discussions here, it's pretty obvious that you guys never even bothered to ask the Zuma for details. Rather than say "Hey, wait a minute, we're not torturing one of our own guys, surely there's gotta be another way", or maybe ask him why he wants a torture report, or why he wants all these weapons, and, hell for that matter you never even asked him what "good condition" means. Hello!

You had a friggin' golden opportunity to interact with the Zuma GM, tell an awesome story, do some kickass RP, and play a part in events that could shape the way Dwilight develops for the rest of time. And what did you do? Nothing. You pissed away all your time doing nothing. You waited until the very last minute to go try to talk to the guy. And then what did you do? You sent bitchy, accusatory OOC message to the GM accusing him of being a dick. And then you opened a Magistrates case with a ridiculously biased report (hey Vellos, why didn't you post the message you sent to the GM to kick off the OOC conversation as part of your report?), accusing the GM of, of all the weird-ass things, bug abuse! Oh, and you filed an SMA report, too. And as part of the Magistrates case you asked that if the Magistrates don't convict the guy, that they issue a declaration declaring the guy to be behaving like a dick.

Yeah, it really sounds like you're really concerned about the IC side of this thing to me.

I'm done with this thread.

[Chenier]

I'm still having a hard time seeing what OOC justification you're imputing to the Zuma GM.

He knew OOC—with 100% certainty—that the message Terrence sent was a fake, and who put him up to it.

He knew this before he requested the torture report.

He has said this already.

Are you just ignoring his posts? Or do you think he's a liar?  Which I wouldn't generally ask, by the way, but in general, your and Vellos's treatment of the Zuma GM in all this has been pretty atrocious.  You've been acting all along as if he's a convicted bug-abuser who deserves whatever insults you feel like thrown his way—an attitude that we would rarely tolerate toward another player.

I don't know what you are getting at. I never said he didn't OOC believe that he OOC knew the message was a fake. I don't believe that to be the case either. You are putting words in my mouth. I don't think he's a liar. I don't think he's a cheater. I don't think he's a dick. I have never said these things, nor do I think them.

Nor have I accused him of abusing a bug. Vellos made that report, and that argument, not me. Personally, let's be clear, I think that this does not violate the social contract. However, I firmly do believe it does violate the SMA rules. These two rulesets are independant of each other.

Do you even bother reading what the GM posted? Would you like me to give you a direct link to his post? He told Vellos to go to the Magistrates and deal with it there because Vellos complained to the GM about it in an OOC IG message. The GM did not want to get into an OOC discussion IG about the issue. You didn't even try to find out if there was any IC/RP motivation for it.
Because you keep trying to be IC indignant over things that don't make sense. If you make IC arguments (i.e. "... asking for a torture report because you believe the scribe more than the noble."), then expect to get IC argumnts back.

But even that claim you made is plainly, and sorry for the language here, pure bull!@#$. Because the GM already told you why he asked. And you are completely ignoring his posts, and arguing useless crap which bears no relations to the actual situation, and attributing to him ridiculous motivations which he has already categorically denied.

If you were really interested in handling all this IC and IG, then what you should have done was, oh, maybe talk to the character IC? Through all of your discussions here, it's pretty obvious that you guys never even bothered to ask the Zuma for details. Rather than say "Hey, wait a minute, we're not torturing one of our own guys, surely there's gotta be another way", or maybe ask him why he wants a torture report, or why he wants all these weapons, and, hell for that matter you never even asked him what "good condition" means. Hello!

You had a friggin' golden opportunity to interact with the Zuma GM, tell an awesome story, do some kickass RP, and play a part in events that could shape the way Dwilight develops for the rest of time. And what did you do? Nothing. You pissed away all your time doing nothing. You waited until the very last minute to go try to talk to the guy. And then what did you do? You sent bitchy, accusatory OOC message to the GM accusing him of being a dick. And then you opened a Magistrates case with a ridiculously biased report (hey Vellos, why didn't you post the message you sent to the GM to kick off the OOC conversation as part of your report?), accusing the GM of, of all the weird-ass things, bug abuse! Oh, and you filed an SMA report, too. And as part of the Magistrates case you asked that if the Magistrates don't convict the guy, that they issue a declaration declaring the guy to be behaving like a dick.

Yeah, it really sounds like you're really concerned about the IC side of this thing to me.

I'm done with this thread.

Indirik, this applies particularily since it's a GM faction that can't be resisted. However, that does not mean that I think that it's solely not fine because he did it. I would consider all demands of game reports, because of their 100% trustworthiness, to be metagaming and therefore against SMA, regardless of who is doing it. We've gotten lazy over the years with Dwilight, and we aren't as zealous as we used to be with inforcing SMA. However, I think that meta-gaming should always remain banned there. Otherwise, just strip SMA away altogether, and call Dwilight Far East 2, or Far West, as it's getting to be as much of an RP island as FEI is.

I don't know where you are getting your stuff. What GM posts are you even talking about? Did he suddenly write new messages somewhere? If so, then indeed I didn't see it. However, I suspect you are talking about the very same couple of messages that were brought up in the very beginning. In which I do not see him "categorically denying" anything. So really, if I'm not seeing something here, please just quote it.

As for the "actual situation", yea, I'm not just talking about this case. 'Cause guess what? This isn't the magistrate case thread. Why should it be limited to this particular case? The original post just briefly mentionned the Zuma incident to add context, but it isn't what the thread started about so I don't see why I should limit myself to discussing just the Zuma case when others bring up topics of interest (such as scout reports).

And btw, I *did* write to Haktoo a few days back. How the hell can you say what I did and tried and what I didn't, eh? He basically said he wouldn't respond to messages, and that I had to go to him in person or talk to Garret. So I talked to Garret, since I've got other things to do and more pertinent figures have went. But talking to Garret isn't of any use anymore. I could write to Haktoo again, or go and see him, but to tell him what, eh? Haktoo asked for torture. I'm not the judge, I can't even do it game-wise. So what would you have me do? I'm a priest, I can't even beat up advies. I could talk to him straight up, but others have, and it's proven pointless. So forgive me for not doing more.

And sending him an OOC message? Dude, seriously, !@#$ off. I didn't write a single OOC message to the GM. I don't know if Vellos did, but I don't give a damn. I'm not Vellos, so don't start accusing me of stuff others did (or might have, or are thought to have done). Vellos was also the one who filed a magistrate report, not me. I did, however, file an SMA report. Is that against the rules, now? And by extension, is everyone who breaks SMA a "dick"? I simply don't think that attitude, which is blatant meta-gaming, belongs on a SMA island. Warnings for SMA, as far as I know, don't extend one's realm anyways. Nobody would know of the judgement aside from the GM. So if the titans pass a decision on the sole fact that he's a GM and shouldn't be "humiliated" (when nobody but him and Garret will get the notice), that's just a load of bull.

So screw you, Indirik. If you are gonna go call people names and throw dirt at them, at least make sure that you are accusing the right person. Most of the things you are cussing at me for weren't even done or said by me.

[De-Legro]

Zuma GM has posted in the magistrates thread, did you miss those?

[Chenier]

Zuma GM has posted in the magistrates thread, did you miss those?

Actually, yes.

Is it such a freaking shocker? Anyone noticed that I had not posted in that thread since? Why do you assume I had read what is on another thread somewhere? I made a few comments here and there, but considering I can't vote, I had determined that following the thread was pretty pointless. I also, in general, didn't post all that much today.

I'm not omnipotent, dude.

That being said, I had never said that he was lying anyways, either before or after his messages in that other thread. And I stick by my opinion regardless. What he says doesn't change my opinion in any way. So he says he OOC knows what's the truth? Why the hell should this matter? The issue, as far as SMA is concerned, isn't that he is asking because he wants to, as a GM, know the truth. The issue is that he is asking because his character knows that torture will be 100% reliable, because OOC he knows it to be the case.

Sure, he makes the argument "The same characters that have used torture themselves in the past and know very well, to them at least, that torture successfully makes humans tell the truth." But that's circular logic. His characters know the game works that way, because the game has always worked that way thus far? This statement doesn't dispove what I was saying, though it may very well disprove what *you think I was saying*, or what you think others were saying for that matter.

The argument the GM has made has absolutely nothing to do with the Zuma. Any judge in the game could use that logic. In pretty much anywhere in the game, it wouldn't matter. On Dwilight, though? I don't think that has a place.

He distrusts humans, now? Fine, but he should distrust the scribes just as much. His character can't know for a fact if torture really did occur, or who really wrote the report, or if what's written in it is really what was said. But if it has a hash code, then it's realiable? And if he had some special daimon powers that could tell him that, then he'd have been able to use the same to learn the truth himself.

[Solari]

Oh for God's sake, it's a GAME, folks.  Crack open a beer and chillax.

[Chaotrance13]

Oh for God's sake, it's a GAME, folks.  Crack open a beer and chillax.

I was just about to say the same thing. This thread has basically devolved into a flamewar.

[Cadfan]

I find controlled starvation of cites to be meta gaming, as it is based upon knowledge of our the food consumption code works. Should we raise some SMA violations against every realm that has used that technique on Dwilight?

How about the fact that some religions choose not to have temples in some regions, because they can avoid follower limits imposed by the temples that way. Even though to most people it would seem obvious that is a non-intended aspect of the code?

Or my favorite, entire realms deciding to treat advies nicely, perhaps even respectfully, because they are "useful". How do we know this? We have only their word that they actually hunt and kill rogue forces. Again players know what advies do, and realms act to encourage them based on this.

I have found the tone of both these thread to be aggressive enough that I have decided to post rather just lurk as I usually do. So here is my take. For me it is meta gaming to deliberately cast doubt on a game mechanic that provides reliable information, and to try and RP it away. I'm not a Dev, I can't know what the Devs intended by a feature, so I take it as face value. I don't try and deconstruct it to so that I can excuse it, anymore then I would try to deconstruct the fact we have instant messaging, or the fact I can see where everyone within my realm is on the Dynamic map.

When I started this game I was taught that Game Mechanics trump RP, so yeah I would think that people that RP around and invalidate game mechanics are meta gamng to try and avoid the realities of the code. Does that mean I am right? Does that mean I should throw my personal opinion in people face and accuse others of !@#$ty play or being "dickish". This could have been a rational, calm discussion. It could have been, hey guys I have always had this opinion, what does everyone else think, can we get a consensus that might help guide peoples actions in the future? Pity that emotion has pretty much destroyed any merit the argument may have had in my mind.

[Chenier]

I find controlled starvation of cites to be meta gaming, as it is based upon knowledge of our the food consumption code works. Should we raise some SMA violations against every realm that has used that technique on Dwilight?

Is it done by *that* many people? Honestly, I consider that to be outright abuse. But it is absolutely impossible to police.

How about the fact that some religions choose not to have temples in some regions, because they can avoid follower limits imposed by the temples that way. Even though to most people it would seem obvious that is a non-intended aspect of the code?

Yes, but again, impossible to police. Though seriously I think that this code could and should have been changed long ago.

I have found the tone of both these thread to be aggressive enough that I have decided to post rather just lurk as I usually do. So here is my take. For me it is meta gaming to deliberately cast doubt on a game mechanic that provides reliable information, and to try and RP it away. I'm not a Dev, I can't know what the Devs intended by a feature, so I take it as face value. I don't try and deconstruct it to so that I can excuse it, anymore then I would try to deconstruct the fact we have instant messaging, or the fact I can see where everyone within my realm is on the Dynamic map.

Some things, like instant messaging, are a necessary compromise or else the game simply wouldn't be playable. Being able to access realm pages of your realm is the equivalent of the locals instant messaging you info. That some exceptions must be made doesn't mean that everything should be accepted.

When I started this game I was taught that Game Mechanics trump RP, so yeah I would think that people that RP around and invalidate game mechanics are meta gamng to try and avoid the realities of the code. Does that mean I am right? Does that mean I should throw my personal opinion in people face and accuse others of !@#$ty play or being "dickish". This could have been a rational, calm discussion. It could have been, hey guys I have always had this opinion, what does everyone else think, can we get a consensus that might help guide peoples actions in the future? Pity that emotion has pretty much destroyed any merit the argument may have had in my mind.

I think you completely misunderstand what meta-gaming means. Meta-gaming is like when I play D&D with my friends, and I decide to take reckless decisions because I know the DM wouldn't let the party all get wiped out over such a thing. Metagaming is not about avoiding code, it's about using out-of-character knowledge of the way a game works to influence the way your character will act.

Do game mechanics trump RP? Yes, absolutely. However, I don't see this to be an issue here. Nobody is trying to RP something that game mechanics said did not happen. There's a difference between saying that IC actions should not be based on player knowledge of the code, and writing RPs that contradict events that the game determined happened.


There was a time where, on Dwilight, forgeting a "sire", writing too many OOC messages, failing to RP your oath, or having instant exchanges with relatives of other continents would likely have grave consequences, be it through policing by players themselves or by Tom and the titans. I really feels like there's nothing left of SMA on Dwilight nowadays, and that we may as well just remove the SMA rules if all this meta-gaming is to be considered fine. SMA has no place on a continent where so many decisions are made that lack any IC sense, simply because of how the game works.

[Cadfan]

There was a time where, on Dwilight, forgeting a "sire", writing too many OOC messages, failing to RP your oath, or having instant exchanges with relatives of other continents would likely have grave consequences, be it through policing by players themselves or by Tom and the titans. I really feels like there's nothing left of SMA on Dwilight nowadays, and that we may as well just remove the SMA rules if all this meta-gaming is to be considered fine. SMA has no place on a continent where so many decisions are made that lack any IC sense, simply because of how the game works.

Those examples all seem a case of pure RP flavor, where is their true relation to underlying code? Do we have any previous example of SMA being enforced about an issue similar to this?

[De-Legro]

" Metagaming is a broad term usually used to define any strategy, action or method used in a game which transcends a prescribed ruleset, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game. Another definition refers to the game universe outside of the game itself. "

It could be argued that using RP in such ways is an attempt to transcend the rule set, with the code base and the design decisions forming the rule set in this case. Meta Gaming is a very broad thing, which is why it is impossible to really say something has broken it unless we are going to establish a single authority to make rulings. What constitutes meta gaming is likely going to revolve hugely around personal opinion.

[Chenier]

" Metagaming is a broad term usually used to define any strategy, action or method used in a game which transcends a prescribed ruleset, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game. Another definition refers to the game universe outside of the game itself. "

It could be argued that using RP in such ways is an attempt to transcend the rule set, with the code base and the design decisions forming the rule set in this case. Meta Gaming is a very broad thing, which is why it is impossible to really say something has broken it unless we are going to establish a single authority to make rulings. What constitutes meta gaming is likely going to revolve hugely around personal opinion.

I don't think that'd be a valid comparison, and that it therefore works the other way around, as we can't affect the in-game rules by our rp. RP cannot affect game rules, therefore the only metagaming possible is game rulers influencing RP. Perhaps elsewhere it'd be possible, but not when the code is regulated by a machine. You could perhaps argue that DMs could metagame by knowledge of their players, I guess, but it wouldn't apply to a game like BM.

Those examples all seem a case of pure RP flavor, where is their true relation to underlying code? Do we have any previous example of SMA being enforced about an issue similar to this?

I'm tired, and I can't think of any example of visible meta-gaming from Dwilight's early days. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, nor does it mean that it was judged as acceptable, though. I just can't think of any similar situation back in Dwi's early days... Inter-realm contact was limited, only one of the three realms had a religion for a while (and only they had a religion that mattered for a very long time), food problems didn't yet exist... So it wasn't really a context that favored the emergence of such attitudes.

Sounds like colonization killed SMA. 

[Cadfan]

I don't think that'd be a valid comparison, and that it therefore works the other way around, as we can't affect the in-game rules by our rp. RP cannot affect game rules, therefore the only metagaming possible is game rulers influencing RP. Perhaps elsewhere it'd be possible, but not when the code is regulated by a machine. You could perhaps argue that DMs could metagame by knowledge of their players, I guess, but it wouldn't apply to a game like BM.

I do. This whole thing can be seen two ways depending on your starting assumption.

If you assume that in the world of BM, it is known that the results of torture are 100% accurate, and for whatever reason the guild of tortures is regarded as beyond reproach in these matters, then bringing OOC information about how torture works in RL, and using that for RP's to discredit the in game mechanics could be viewed as meta gaming.

RP can't change the code, but it certain CAN change the ways players react to what the code produces. This for me is what this all hinges on, and no, I don't consider the knowledge that torture report are 100% accurate is OOC for my character, since in the game world as defined by the code, that would likely be the only experience he has.

Just as I don't treat the fact that we can work out the harvest cycles percentage for each season, as well as the % numbers for climates factors, and pair this with the dynamic maps food stat to work out our food production estimates for regions we have never held dominion over, and which in a rogue state don't even have the productive capacity to make extrapolations from. Or the fact that we know each peasant will demand exactly the same amount of food to help work out consumption requirements. Yet we all make TO decision on Dwilight based on these things.

How about the people that don't bother with treaties on Dwilight, cause they know they don't do anything, even though treaties would add large amounts of flavor to the world by simply existing? Or those that use wiki treaties instead, so they can avoid the game mechanic of upkeep, again knowing that the upkeep is wasted as the treaty currently has no in game effect.

How many realms on Dwilight have adopted a "no knights in rural regions" policy now that the code no longer requires knights for region control, simply to expand their domains. Is it SMA that rural lords are all happy to see so much of their region simply wild? Is it SMA that we have all figured out that the gold returns from Knights in rural regions is not as good as knights in the cities, and since food production is no longer tied to estates the opportunity cost of the regions we could take for food production outweighs maximizing the gold production of existing regions?